Something must be done: Accidental Innuendo

"That's right; its not an innuendo at all."

No, you are missing the point. My original drawing example does look like a penis, but unintentionally, but the second example doesn't at all.

Freud Was Right

Is it just me, or do we have a real mess on our hands with all the innuendo tropes?

Yes, we do. Too many of these overlap and have non-indicative names.

Huge problems

Ok, so Freud Was Right is supposed to be an Audience Reaction. It's a specific case of Everyone Is Jesus in Purgatory.

It's not indicted to be audience reaction in the description, and isn't on that index.

So, shall we ask for a multiaction Crowner?

• make Accidental Innuendo in universe
• fix all of the innuendo and Double Entendre pages
• just fix Accidental Innuendo and Innocent Innuendo
• do nothing

This might take a special efforts thread to clean them up en masse.

I say Innocent Innuendo should be clearly about both characters and audience in the description. I know there is a backlog before we can take care of that thread, but I propose it be called Innuendo By Omission.

edited 29th Oct '11 12:50:02 PM by DragonQuestZ

I really don't think the question of whether to fix the innuendo and Double Entendre pages should come down to a crowner - they're clearly messed up.

That's your opinion, but shouldn't we seek some sort of consensus from the tropers who have left me and DQZ to argue about this?

I fully expected others to come in long before now.

One reason Accidental Innuendo is bad right now is that by limiting it to troper reactions, we've effectively made this a variation of Fetish Fuel, in that it's tropers listing things that are sexual in some way.

Or that they perceive as such. And as we know from Getting Crap Past the Radar, that's a very broad category.

I also meant perception as well. It's still sexually related though.

I should also add that That's What She Said is effectively a specific form of this (aside from when they are just Your Mom in different words), and might best be merged so that it's not just a stock phrase.

I thought that was a double entendre

No, a double entendre wouldn't get called out like that.

I meant that saying that turns previous sentence into a double entendre

No, you can't make something into one. You can just point out that it seems like one.

Okay, so That's What She Said is not s Double Entendre. What happened to getting a Crowner?

Well what should we do the crowner for? A rename of this trope? A redefinition? Fixing most of the ententre and innuendo tropes?

Or should the first crowner be for something like that?

Yes, from what our posts 31 and 32 say.

edited 3rd Nov '11 2:17:31 PM by crazysamaritan

Part of the problem here is that Innocent Innuendo's description disagrees with the examples. I would define that trope to be about having a character misinterpret innocent but dubiously worded dialogue, sometimes trying to fool the audience by limiting their viewpoint too, sometimes showing the audience the truth of the matter as well the dirty looks of the character.

This one's about as slow moving as the GCPTR thread is in Special Efforts and that one actually has approval from Fast Eddie amongst others. Seeing how this and the other innuendo tropes all have the same issue of being heavy on the natter and/or acting as Self Demonstrating Articles for Freud Was Right (which itself is somewhere in TRS for exactly the same reasons as this article) we probably should consider the whole rather than the branches and deal with them as one single issue rather than several scattered issues.

edited 25th Nov '11 2:25:55 PM by treelo

Well I propose as a whole they all be limited to in-universe. If a character calls out an innuendo, or pretends it's one, it objectively happens. So that would cut a lot of natter there.

I'd argue for no examples because I simply don't believe that given the sort of examples out there that people add some won't still try and make something in-universe even when it isn't. Much like Fetish Fuel couldn't ever be limited to in-universe because bad examples would still creep in, the same sort of scenario wouldn't be such a bad thing for these tropes because the severity of the issue. If we still allow examples, they'll return to their natter magnet state and continue to attract the weirdest non-content here.

I agree.